Sharifijanov2099 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Here's some interesting data from last year. The top 90 forwards produced at 0.66 points per game or at around 54 points (or greater) over 82 games. Forwards ranked 91-180 produced at 0.47 points per game or at around 38 points (or greater) over 82 games. Forwards ranked 181-270 produced at 0.31 points per game or at around 25 points (or greater) over 82 games. From that data...... A 1st line forward is about 50 points or better A 2nd line forward is about 40 - 49 points. A 3rd line forward is about 25 - 30 points. A 4th line forward is about 24 points or fewer. These are all just rough estimates of course. No offense, but this is exceptionally rosy thinking. Averaging all data from all forwards across all ice times and then to count them up as they are here and drawing arbitrary dividing lines... seems to really skew the data. For one, because this doesn't take into account playoff teams vs non playoff teams. Who cares what "a 1st line forward" means if the definition of 1st liner includes "anything from a Penguin top line to a Sabre top line"? And this also doesn't account for the fact that the top 30 forwards in your data (of the top 90) will have a huge deviation from the bottom 30 (of the top 90). More meaningful is to look at our own division - and the teams that are playoff teams - and to compare them against our players... Right now, here's what that looks like: Islanders: 2 players averaging nearly a point per game (or 82 over 82) [Tavares/Okposo] Ragss: 1 player who will finish 70+ [Nash] and who will finish 60+ [brassard] Pens: 2 players averaging over a point per game [Crosby/Malkin], and 2 in the 0.8 ppg (or 65+ pts) [Hornqvist/Letang] Caps: 2 players at a point per game [Ovechkin/Backstrom] So by my estimation, if you want to make the playoffs in our division, it'd be wise to have at least two players averaging 0.8 ppg, and there's a huge difference between the definition of "50 or better" and "0.8 ppg [65pts] or better". Adam Henrique and Mike Cammer are clipping at 0.62 points per game (well below 0.8) and are the only NJ players anywhere near the above range of 0.8. Point and case, NJ has two forwards that project out to 51 points, and every other "good" team in our division has at least has two guys that are in the 65 to 85 point range. Within our division, Henrique and Cammalleri are only "first line forwards" based on production averages in the sense that sure, they could play first line minutes on other bad teams too and produce at their current clip. If however NJ wants to make the playoffs, they need their "1st line forwards" to be better. We don't need a Tavares or a 90 point player, but we absofruitly need guys who can put up 65 points that are chewing up the big top line minutes. It's not okay to have 50 pointers and nothing better, and it's arbitrary as all heckfire to say "we're good... when compared against this large set of meaningless league data." Oh and for the record, even the non-playoff teams in our division have much better forwards. Phili has 2 at nearly ppg. Columbus has about 3 around or above the 0.8 ppg. Only Carolina is as piss-pathetic as NJ, except for them their Henrique is Eric Staal (around 0.65 ppg). Henrique and Cammalleri are 2nd liners based on divisional scoring. NJ lacks 3 "1st line" players. And hopefully *that* puts things in perspective, because those other #s are really nonsense IMO. Not trying to be doom-and-gloom, because I think guys like Henrique and Cam *could* put up 65 points if things were going well for NJ, but this team is far from ok, and league numbers broken up in chunks of 90 don't paint our picture at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeControl Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 No offense, but this is exceptionally rosy thinking. Averaging all data from all forwards across all ice times and then to count them up as they are here and drawing arbitrary dividing lines... seems to really skew the data. For one, because this doesn't take into account playoff teams vs non playoff teams. Who cares what "a 1st line forward" means if the definition of 1st liner includes "anything from a Penguin top line to a Sabre top line"? And this also doesn't account for the fact that the top 30 forwards in your data (of the top 90) will have a huge deviation from the bottom 30 (of the top 90). More meaningful is to look at our own division - and the teams that are playoff teams - and to compare them against our players... Right now, here's what that looks like: Islanders: 2 players averaging nearly a point per game (or 82 over 82) [Tavares/Okposo] Ragss: 1 player who will finish 70+ [Nash] and who will finish 60+ [brassard] Pens: 2 players averaging over a point per game [Crosby/Malkin], and 2 in the 0.8 ppg (or 65+ pts) [Hornqvist/Letang] Caps: 2 players at a point per game [Ovechkin/Backstrom] So by my estimation, if you want to make the playoffs in our division, it'd be wise to have at least two players averaging 0.8 ppg, and there's a huge difference between the definition of "50 or better" and "0.8 ppg [65pts] or better". Adam Henrique and Mike Cammer are clipping at 0.62 points per game (well below 0.8) and are the only NJ players anywhere near the above range of 0.8. Point and case, NJ has two forwards that project out to 51 points, and every other "good" team in our division has at least has two guys that are in the 65 to 85 point range. Within our division, Henrique and Cammalleri are only "first line forwards" based on production averages in the sense that sure, they could play first line minutes on other bad teams too and produce at their current clip. If however NJ wants to make the playoffs, they need their "1st line forwards" to be better. We don't need a Tavares or a 90 point player, but we absofruitly need guys who can put up 65 points that are chewing up the big top line minutes. It's not okay to have 50 pointers and nothing better, and it's arbitrary as all heckfire to say "we're good... when compared against this large set of meaningless league data." Oh and for the record, even the non-playoff teams in our division have much better forwards. Phili has 2 at nearly ppg. Columbus has about 3 around or above the 0.8 ppg. Only Carolina is as piss-pathetic as NJ, except for them their Henrique is Eric Staal (around 0.65 ppg). Henrique and Cammalleri are 2nd liners based on divisional scoring. NJ lacks 3 "1st line" players. And hopefully *that* puts things in perspective, because those other #s are really nonsense IMO. Not trying to be doom-and-gloom, because I think guys like Henrique and Cam *could* put up 65 points if things were going well for NJ, but this team is far from ok, and league numbers broken up in chunks of 90 don't paint our picture at all. I thought he was posting these avgs to show how bad our situation was LOL seriously. we dont have 1 forward on our team who is in the top 100. thats almost hard to do. let alone the average of the top 90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Great post Bekim, good analysis. Makes it a little more apparent just how bad this team is. Edited March 24, 2015 by Devilsfan118 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharifijanov2099 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Great post Bekim, good analysis. Makes it a little more apparent just how bad this team is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonNala370 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 No offense, but this is exceptionally rosy thinking. Averaging all data from all forwards across all ice times and then to count them up as they are here and drawing arbitrary dividing lines... seems to really skew the data. For one, because this doesn't take into account playoff teams vs non playoff teams. Who cares what "a 1st line forward" means if the definition of 1st liner includes "anything from a Penguin top line to a Sabre top line"? And this also doesn't account for the fact that the top 30 forwards in your data (of the top 90) will have a huge deviation from the bottom 30 (of the top 90). More meaningful is to look at our own division - and the teams that are playoff teams - and to compare them against our players... Right now, here's what that looks like: Islanders: 2 players averaging nearly a point per game (or 82 over 82) [Tavares/Okposo] Ragss: 1 player who will finish 70+ [Nash] and who will finish 60+ [brassard] Pens: 2 players averaging over a point per game [Crosby/Malkin], and 2 in the 0.8 ppg (or 65+ pts) [Hornqvist/Letang] Caps: 2 players at a point per game [Ovechkin/Backstrom] So by my estimation, if you want to make the playoffs in our division, it'd be wise to have at least two players averaging 0.8 ppg, and there's a huge difference between the definition of "50 or better" and "0.8 ppg [65pts] or better". Adam Henrique and Mike Cammer are clipping at 0.62 points per game (well below 0.8) and are the only NJ players anywhere near the above range of 0.8. Point and case, NJ has two forwards that project out to 51 points, and every other "good" team in our division has at least has two guys that are in the 65 to 85 point range. Within our division, Henrique and Cammalleri are only "first line forwards" based on production averages in the sense that sure, they could play first line minutes on other bad teams too and produce at their current clip. If however NJ wants to make the playoffs, they need their "1st line forwards" to be better. We don't need a Tavares or a 90 point player, but we absofruitly need guys who can put up 65 points that are chewing up the big top line minutes. It's not okay to have 50 pointers and nothing better, and it's arbitrary as all heckfire to say "we're good... when compared against this large set of meaningless league data." Oh and for the record, even the non-playoff teams in our division have much better forwards. Phili has 2 at nearly ppg. Columbus has about 3 around or above the 0.8 ppg. Only Carolina is as piss-pathetic as NJ, except for them their Henrique is Eric Staal (around 0.65 ppg). Henrique and Cammalleri are 2nd liners based on divisional scoring. NJ lacks 3 "1st line" players. And hopefully *that* puts things in perspective, because those other #s are really nonsense IMO. Not trying to be doom-and-gloom, because I think guys like Henrique and Cam *could* put up 65 points if things were going well for NJ, but this team is far from ok, and league numbers broken up in chunks of 90 don't paint our picture at all. First off - assuming we pick a forward with our 1st pick this year isn't a safe assumption. But I'm pretty certain it is safe to say he won't be NHL ready next year. Boucher on the first line spells disaster. Kid has not shown a single thing that indiciates he's ready for prime-time minutes. Then again, if you're trying to tank (our new favorite word!) it's not a bad idea. Zajac on the 3rd isn't going to happen. While he might be a 3rd line forward in 2/3 of the teams in this league, the Devils are paying him like a top center so he'll be given 1st line minutes. It says something about how pathetic our forward corps is that we're potentially relying on Scott freakin Gomez to be our top center in 2015-2016. You guys are to be congratulated, your hitting home runs. Read my signature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 A top 6 forward in the NHL this year produced at 0.47 points per game or better. Bernier, Elias, Jagr, Henrique, Gomez, and Cammalleri all produced like top 6 forwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilMinder Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Dang what a snipe by severson, I thought it was Camm at first! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 Dang what a snipe by severson, I thought it was Camm at first! Offense from our defense shouldn't be too big of an issue going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilMinder Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Getting sassy with the DM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormJosh Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 We need to find a way to score 40 more goals next season, or about half a goal per game. That is an extremely tall order. This year we scored 181 while giving up 216. Look at Ottawa, PIttsburgh, and Boston, the minimum level you need to be at to make the playoffs. The teams that made it (and Boston) had about the same performance on the defensive side of things, but scored an extra 42-57 goals over the course of the season. It is extremely unlike we can make up that difference in one season. Ottawa: 238 GF, 218 GA Pittsburgh: 221 GF, 210 GA Boston: 213 GF, 211 GA New Jersey: 181 GF, 216 GA Also, whats up with Anaheim? Check out their GF/GA. 12th in GF 19th in GA. Thats not bad but it doesn't sound like a #1 seed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.